I'm of a different opinion. Looking like a shifty twat does not imply racism or wrongdoing. Despite a whole squad of players there no one has backed up Aluko with regards to the allegations. The only two players who came out in support of her had also both been dropped and complained about not being made to feel wanted by Sampson. Again, that's a long way away from racism. This is running and running because the media are continually pushing the story. Aluko was paid 80k before an investigation took place in order to not disrupt the competition they were in, at which point no one knew whether he was guilty or innocent, where she took the money. Then she revisited the allegations and there was found to be no evidence for them. After that she made other previously unmentioned claims about what happened.

It's unbelievable to me that being accused, while no evidence has been presented, is enough to be assumed guilty.

He might even lose his job because one person claimed he said something despite there being no evidence. It's ridiculous.

(09-13-2017, 06:33 AM)ASOGF Wrote: I'm of a different opinion. Looking like a shifty twat does not imply racism or wrongdoing. Despite a whole squad of players there no one has backed up Aluko with regards to the allegations. The only two players who came out in support of her had also both been dropped and complained about not being made to feel wanted by Sampson. Again, that's a long way away from racism. This is running and running because the media are continually pushing the story. Aluko was paid 80k before an investigation took place in order to not disrupt the competition they were in, at which point no one knew whether he was guilty or innocent, where she took the money. Then she revisited the allegations and there was found to be no evidence for them. After that she made other previously unmentioned claims about what happened.

It's unbelievable to me that being accused, while no evidence has been presented, is enough to be assumed guilty.

He might even lose his job because one person claimed he said something despite there being no evidence. It's ridiculous.

Exactly +1. I hope some on here never sit on a jury... He looks a bit shifty to me bound to be guilty.

(09-13-2017, 06:33 AM)ASOGF Wrote: I'm of a different opinion. Looking like a shifty twat does not imply racism or wrongdoing. Despite a whole squad of players there no one has backed up Aluko with regards to the allegations. The only two players who came out in support of her had also both been dropped and complained about not being made to feel wanted by Sampson. Again, that's a long way away from racism. This is running and running because the media are continually pushing the story. Aluko was paid 80k before an investigation took place in order to not disrupt the competition they were in, at which point no one knew whether he was guilty or innocent, where she took the money. Then she revisited the allegations and there was found to be no evidence for them. After that she made other previously unmentioned claims about what happened.

It's unbelievable to me that being accused, while no evidence has been presented, is enough to be assumed guilty.

He might even lose his job because one person claimed he said something despite there being no evidence. It's ridiculous.

+1.

I find it hard to believe that out of an entire squad of professional footballers, there isn't one who feels the need to justify Aluko's claim, and I find it hard to believe that racism could be so institutionalised amongst a group of people of this nature.

Obviously I hope that whatever distress Aluko has felt can be resolved, but it all feels very fishy. After what happened with Big Sam you'd think the slightest hint of another scandal would have been avoided whatever the cost, whereas they've stuck by Sampson pretty rigidly despite two investigations.

There is also a reality whereby some people will use any angle to win their argument and they become that determined they don't consider the long term consequences for the people that have 'wronged' them.

We had a recent case here whereby one employee accused their manager of all sorts of nonsense but as it was all subjective and as the manager had been naive there was no way of disproving it. Complaints of feeling threatened by a person so that they were afraid to be in the same room, racism, sexism and bullying were thrown at the manager and all with the end goal of getting a payout before the individual left the business. I have no evidence either way but I know both of the people involved enough to know the accuser was playing the system to get what they want and were willing to throw the manager, who had been very helpful to this persons career, under the bus.

As it's one person's word against another, I'm not commenting on any individual's guilt.

The fishy bit to me is how can she be allowed to revisit claims when she reached a settlement over the grievance claim against the FA? Thought there would've been legally binding conditions when accepting it.......unless it was a money in an envelope job which is why the FA is now being investigated.

(09-13-2017, 06:33 AM)ASOGF Wrote: I'm of a different opinion. Looking like a shifty twat does not imply racism or wrongdoing. Despite a whole squad of players there no one has backed up Aluko with regards to the allegations. The only two players who came out in support of her had also both been dropped and complained about not being made to feel wanted by Sampson. Again, that's a long way away from racism. This is running and running because the media are continually pushing the story. Aluko was paid 80k before an investigation took place in order to not disrupt the competition they were in, at which point no one knew whether he was guilty or innocent, where she took the money. Then she revisited the allegations and there was found to be no evidence for them. After that she made other previously unmentioned claims about what happened.

It's unbelievable to me that being accused, while no evidence has been presented, is enough to be assumed guilty.

He might even lose his job because one person claimed he said something despite there being no evidence. It's ridiculous.

I was listening to questions to him from Dan Roan on the radio yesterday. The most relevant question was that regarding Aluko and what he thought of her. To not call her a liar or imaginative at best points to an element of guilt, for me.